Chris Lombardi puts defense and security under the spotlight, as he shares his takes on recent NATO and EU cooperation and provides insight into the company’s own long-term strategic partnerships in Europe.

Three trends are currently driving the global electricity sector: decarbonization, decentralization and differentiation. Utilities are making significant contributions to mitigate carbon emissions, while a technology revolution is …

You present my ‘defence of the Santer Commission’ as if it was a plea in its favour, when it was merely a modest attempt at describing Robert Schuman’s thinking about European integration and how his thinking is still relevant today.

The few lines devoted to the Santer Commission were exclusively aimed at depicting the institutional deeds that animated the European Union’s life – and deciphering what lay behind them.

Paul Van Buitenen’s opinion about the case concerning the Commission’s humanitarian aid department, ECHO, is very well known. He was of course very disappointed when the Commission, on 14 July 1999, endorsed by unanimity the collective opinion of the disciplinary board that I did not fail, as director of ECHO, in my duties and did not contravene any provision of the officials’ regulations.

The Commission’s decision gave rise to newspaper articles and TV programmes, which contained libellous and slanderous allegations about me from people who, like van Buitenen, were still not convinced.

I brought my case to the Court of First Instance. I won and, in 2000, the Commission had to confirm my innocence to newspapers and the European Parliament. Of course, van Buitenen has a copy of these documents. However he went on with his exhaustive investigations, and, on 31 August 2001, produced a file containing allegations against around 40 high -ranking officials. Unavoidably, I was on the list.

In spite of its confidential nature, the file presented to the Commission was then leaked to the media, and as a consequence a number of papers published articles in which it was again claimed that I was fraudulent, saying that the proceedings of the disciplinary board were not correct and had been manipulated. The Commission did not take the actions I requested, and again I took the institution to court. The case is still pending at the Court of First Instance.

As to the “substantial evidence” invoked by van Buitenen, my lawyers have examined his various statements and their conclusions are extremely clear: there is nothing in them that has not already been rejected by previous Commission decisions. Furthermore, the preliminary proceedings that took place before the president of the Court of First Instance revealed that OLAF, which examined the August 2001 van Buitenen report, found nothing against me.

So I challenge van Buitenen to demonstrate that “there is substantial evidence linking the Spaniard to the disappearance of around €600,000”, as he claims in your newspaper.

It seems to me that van Buitenen does have quite a shallow and one-dimensional conception of fundamental human rights in general and of the freedom of expression in particular.

He is certainly aware of the fact that officials enjoy the right of free expression, even in areas falling within the scope of the activities of the European institutions (as the Court of First Instance ruled in case T-82/99, Michael Cwik/Commission), but he seems to consider that such a fundamental human right applies only for invoking scandals or accusing officials of fraud.

Your second article (‘Time for closer look at Commission rules’) is deeply disturbing because you suggest the Commission should review the rules in order to prevent European officials enjoying their rights as consecrated by the Officials’ Regulations and the Court.

My profound conviction is that one day the 1999 fall of the Commission will be looked into and narrated with honesty and fair detachment by someone who will lay aside the morbid and sectarian stances of some papers, and that perhaps he/she will reach the same conclusions as the former Competition Commissioner Karel Van Miert did, namely that the independent experts achieved “an irresponsible act in making their notorious pronouncement about the lack of a sense of responsibility in the Commission’s services”.